When Fiction Bleeds Into Reality: A Cautionary Tale

There’s a moment every writer dreads—not writer’s block, not bad reviews—but the quiet realization that the story you’re telling no longer feels speculative.

It feels familiar.

As I prepare to release the latest James Maguire book, Exposed King, I’ve found myself increasingly unsettled by the daily news cycle. Headlines that once would have sounded exaggerated now feel routine. Language that once belonged in dystopian fiction is now spoken casually from podiums, press briefings, and social media feeds.

And that should concern all of us.

Writing a Story I Never Wanted to Be Relevant

Exposed King follows NYPD Police Commissioner James Maguire as he investigates a disturbing pattern: criminals turning up dead, seemingly targeted, seemingly judged, seemingly executed. The city is already fractured—politically, socially, morally—and instead of unifying in the face of fear, its leaders retreat into tribal lines, rhetoric, and blame.

Maguire isn’t just fighting a killer.
He’s fighting paralysis.
He’s fighting politics.
He’s fighting the slow erosion of trust between the public and the system meant to protect them.

I began outlining Exposed King in 2019—long before the social fabric felt this frayed, before institutions were openly questioned at every turn, and before division became a political currency. At the time, much of what I was writing felt speculative, even risky. I remember second-guessing certain plot points, worried that I might be “jumping the shark,” pushing the story too far beyond what readers would find believable. Now, as the book nears release, I find myself unsettled for an entirely different reason: those same elements no longer feel exaggerated. They feel plausible. Worse, they feel familiar—like stories that could comfortably lead the evening news rather than live between the covers of a novel.

That growing sense of recognition is also part of why Exposed King took longer to finish than I ever anticipated. As the world began to resemble the story I was trying to tell, I found myself slowing down—not because I had run out of ideas, but because the line between fiction and reality had blurred. The story demanded more care, more restraint, and a deeper understanding of the consequences it was pointing toward.

Exposed King was intended as a cautionary thriller—a “what if.” What if leaders spent more time posturing than protecting? What if laws were enforced selectively? What if criminals were elevated as symbols while ordinary civilians were reduced to statistics? What if accountability vanished, replaced by ideology?

I never expected to watch those questions unfold in real time.

The Dangerous Game of Anarcho-Tyranny

There’s a concept often discussed in political theory called anarcho-tyranny: the idea that institutions grow increasingly oppressive toward the law-abiding while becoming increasingly permissive toward the lawless.

You see it when:

  • Crime rises, but consequences vanish

  • Civilians are told to “understand” while victims are told to endure

  • Violence is condemned selectively, depending on who commits it

  • Entire groups of people are demonized for their beliefs, their votes, or their skin color

When leaders fan these flames—intentionally or not—they gamble with something they cannot control: human breaking points.

History shows us, again and again, that when good people feel abandoned, ignored, or sacrificed for political optics, something snaps. Not in everyone. Not at once. But enough to change the trajectory of a society.

That’s the danger zone.

When the System Loses Moral Authority

One of the central tensions in Exposed King is this:
What happens when the system loses the moral authority to govern?

Not legally.
Morally.

When people no longer believe justice is possible, they don’t stop believing in justice altogether—they start redefining it. And that’s when things turn dark.

This isn’t an endorsement of vigilantism. Quite the opposite. It’s a warning. A society that pushes its citizens into corners—where law feels optional for some and suffocating for others—creates the very monsters it later claims to fear.

And here’s the part that should keep politicians awake at night:

Once violence becomes normalized, once dehumanization becomes routine, once “enemy” replaces “neighbor,” the crosshairs don’t stay fixed on the margins forever.

They move.

A Personal Unease

As a writer, I’m supposed to imagine worst-case scenarios. I’m supposed to explore uncomfortable questions. But I never wanted to feel like I was chronicling the present.

There’s a deep discomfort in watching scenes I labored over—conflict, distrust, political theater—play out not on the page, but in real cities, with real victims, and irreversible consequences.

Stories are meant to provoke thought, not serve as blueprints.

A Caution, Not a Call

Exposed King is not a manifesto. It’s not an argument for one side or another. It’s a warning about trajectories—about what happens when leadership prioritizes ideology over stability, messaging over lives, and division over responsibility.

The path we’re on is a dangerous one.

If leaders continue to sacrifice cohesion for applause, morality for momentum, and people for power, they shouldn’t be shocked when the consequences arrive uninvited.

Because once society decides the rules no longer apply evenly… everyone becomes vulnerable.

Including those who thought they were untouchable.

September 11th, Charlie Kirk, and Exposed King

I am sitting here this morning feeling a sense of numbness as I deal with the normal emotions of September 11th coupled with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I say ‘normal’ because as an NYPD first responder on that day I have grudgingly accepted that the emotions are part of who I am now. I stopped trying to make sense of it long ago, and now I just accept that there is an ebb and flow that I must ride out annually. I don’t fight it; I just let the memories come in and go out, because you cannot make ‘sense’ of what happened twenty-four years ago.

On September 11th, 2001, we came together as a country. At first we felt rage and anger about the terrorist attack. Then we felt the collective pain as we came to terms with the fact that we’d lost thousands of our fellow citizens; men, women and children who would never see another sunrise; people who woke up and died because of someone else’s hatred. Then there was a brief moment of solidarity: United We Stand, Never Forget, Remember the Heroes… but like most altruistic slogans, it had no depth.

Yesterday, September 10th, 2025, a 31-year-old husband and father of two small children was assassinated in Utah. His crime? Having a dissenting opinion.

Charlie Kirk was on a university campus, a world where dissenting opinions have traditionally been fostered and embraced, but yesterday we were told, in no uncertain terms, that this world no longer exists.

A man was murdered in cold-blood and many cheered at his demise.

A bullet became the ultimate form of censorship.

It reminded me of the line spoken by Tyrion Lannister in George R.R. Martin’s book: Clash of Kings – “When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

This is America now. This is who we have become. Not United, but divided to the point that murder has become an acceptable course of action against those whom we disagree with.

I released my last James Maguire book, Glass Castle, in 2019. As most good authors, I had the working plot for the next book, Exposed King, in my head. I remember that I struggled a bit with it, because it had what I felt was a radical leap, or, to use the old Happy Days trope, I felt like I was ‘jumping the shark’ with this story-line, but I told myself that I could polish it and make it plausible. I’d moved on to the next Alex Taylor book, The Killing Game, as I compiled notes and ideas and fleshed-out the outline.

Then Covid-19 happened.

I thought it was my time to shine, to get the downtime I needed to write my little heart out.

I finished The Killing Game, I wrote Awakening, a genre bending police procedural meets vampires, got in another Cold Case novella, and even managed to write: Shadow Strike, a Maguire origin story, but Exposed King languished in a file on my computer.

I wrote some chapters, which were more like snippets or frustrated paragraphs, in fits and starts, struggling as I went, as if some unseen force was trying to block me. As a writer, I knew I had to walk away. Forcing it would never work. I kept asking myself why I was having so much of a problem.

It’s fiction. I’m a writer. This is what I do.

The truth is I fear that Exposed King won’t be fiction. The premise is less of a ‘who done it’ and more of a ‘what if.’

As I said earlier, the plot came to me during Glass Castle, pre-dating Covid, but also George Floyd and before the Defund the Police movement and all the other radical events since. With each passing day, I saw my fictional plot growing potentially more real, and it scared me.

America is changing, and not for the better.

For nearly a hundred years, Superman’s iconic motto was: “Truth, Justice, and the American Way,” and yet today we find ourselves facing an America where truth is subjective, justice is no longer impartial, and the American way is abhorrent to a large swath of society.

I know I have to finish Exposed King; I just hope it remains within the realm of fictional work and does not become a prescient warning.

A part of me wonders if George Orwell felt the same way when he published 1984.

May God have mercy on us.

9/11 World Trade Center Cross taken by anne bybee

The Attempted Assassination of President Donald J. Trump

Over the course of the last two days, I have watched a torrent of misleading social media posts on the attempted assassination of the 45th President Donald J. Trump. They are maligning the men and women of the United States Secret Service, and I feel compelled to address them.

As some of you are aware, I spent a number of years assigned to the NYPD’s Intelligence Division and part of my role was dignitary protection. In this capacity, I performed countless protection assignments, working hand in hand with the USSS, Capitol Police, and State Department Diplomatic Security. I was the principal architect of the NYPD protective security detail for both the planned visit of Saint Pope John Paul II at Shea Stadium and the actual visit at the Aqueduct Racetrack. I also did the security detail for President Bill Clinton’s visit to Shea Stadium for the Jackie Robinson Memorial. So I am extremely well versed in the planning and implementation of security details.

What happened in Butler, Pa. was an aberration and something I am still trying to wrap my head around. I do not have all the details, but what I will say is that there was clearly a breakdown. A full investigation of this incident needs to be conducted, preferably at the Congressional level and under oath, and swift action should be taken if warranted.

With this in mind, I will give you my thoughts, based on my experience, and what I would have done if this was my site.

To be successful, protection details involve the coordinated efforts of both the US Secret Service and members of state and local police agencies. The USSS simply does not have the manpower resources to provide 100% independent coverage, so they rely heavily on local law enforcement to augment their numbers. In NYC, the USSS was able to count on the men and women of the Intelligence Division which had decades of experience in protection assignments.

Since the building where the shooter was located was in the external perimeter, it was most likely allocated to be secured by local law enforcement by the advance team doing the security survey. Clearly, something happened, and that roof was left uncovered. The question of why this occurred is of paramount importance. Even though this rooftop was in the external perimeter, the fact that it was so close, and had a line of sight to the protectee, would make it a priority. If this had been my site, I would have had a post-stander assigned and would have personally ensured that they were in place before the protectee arrived for the event.

There are reports that civilians attempted to alert law enforcement to the threat prior to the shooting. I have seen nothing that counters this assertion, so I will take it as fact. If someone was notified and or assigned to this post, then we need to know why they failed to identify the threat and take action.

The next question that comes to mind is what the communication setup was. There can be a significant delay in relaying information if there is not a dedicated interagency communication hub. Was the information coming in from local authorities being properly relayed to their USSS counterparts? One personal story that comes to mind is the time we were transporting a dignitary via a secondary motorcade route. I was in the helicopter, doing a quick advance survey on the route, ahead of the motorcade, when we observed a bridge in the upright position on a maritime navigation route. The last thing you want is a protectee’s motorcade coming to a full stop. Fortunately, me and my USSS partner were able to alert the motorcade in time to slow it down, so that it never fully stopped, while a Highway Patrol car was able to get the bridge put down right before the motorcade arrived. It is an inconvenient truth, but despite the best planning, mistakes can and do happen and you have to respond accordingly.

I am also hearing widely disseminated reports that the Counter Sniper Teams (CST) in place were local law enforcement and I must take issue with this. The CST I saw in the news coverage is the USSS CST. A lot of time has passed since I did protection, but I cannot imagine a high-threat protective detail using the local law enforcement as the primary CST within the inner perimeter. I can only assume that this was a mistake in the rush to get information out. I back up this statement with the fact that the CST shown in media footage is wearing a USSS back patch on his BDUs.

What concerns me more regarding this is the lack of immediate action once the threat was recognized. The USSS CST is considered one of the best, for obvious reasons, and the distance between them and the shooter was ridiculously close. What I want to know is what the rules of engagement were? Was CST given the green light to take the shot, once the threat was identified, or were they advised to stand down? If they were told to stand down, what was the reasoning for this? Again, this is something that needs to be investigated fully.

I also want to address an issue that sickens me. Far too many people are disparaging the females assigned to the detail. The response from the protection detail was immediate and swift. In two seconds, they had secured President Trump, providing physical coverage and assessing his injuries. That Trump was not immediately evacuated has caused many to criticize the USSS, but this is unfair and speaks volumes about the lack of knowledge concerning protection. This is seconds after the shots have been fired, your protectee is hit, and you don’t know the extent of the injuries or if there are other threats. Do you exit stage left or stage right? The limo is a hardened location, but are you running into an ambush? These are the questions going through your mind and you need an answer from those ahead of you before you make things worse.

You had two CSTs providing over-watch, along with USSS Counter Assault and local tactical units providing close support. Additionally, there were other protective measures nearby that I will not mention for security reasons. The detail did what they were trained to do. Once it was made clear that there were no other threats, they evacuated. Each of them, including the female agent on the stage, willingly put themselves in the line of fire, using their bodies as cover for the protectee. If you have never done this, perhaps you should sit this one out on providing morning after commentary.

This also cannot be compared to the attempted assassination of President Reagan. In that incident, they were adjacent to the limo when the shooting occurred and therefore it was the only logical place to go.

Many are also attacking the one female agent for not being able to holster her weapon. In the aftermath of a shooting, when adrenaline is flowing freely and you are scanning for secondary threats, nitpicking on a topic like this is ridiculous. Making comments that disparage female agents says more about you than it does about them. I have over two decades in law enforcement and I can tell you that I have worked with females who were absolute beasts when it came to doing their jobs and ones I would gladly go into battle with. Yet I cannot say the same for some males I worked with. Remember the old adage: It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

In the end, mistakes and failures will be identified and presumably heads will roll. Congress needs to find out whether there was adequate coverage of the former president, considering the unprecedented threat level against him, and this starts with having both DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and USSS Director Kimberly Cheatle testify under oath. Until we have definitive answers, everything is just speculation, and I urge people to exercise caution until all the facts are known.

The level of vitriol, from politicians, pundits, celebrities, and social media personalities, and the repeated personal attacks against the former president, which have been going on since the day he first announced that he was running for President, reached their natural conclusion in this assassination attempt. As someone who had to deal with threats, I can tell you that this constant barrage of negativity serves as the foundation for warped minds to de-humanize a person and justify such actions. You can have a difference of opinion and you can hold different political views, but that is what we have a ballot box for. I am reminded of a scene in a British comedy show called ‘The Mitchell and Webb Look.’ During one particular scene, they portray two German SS officers and one asks the other: "Hans, are we the baddies?" Today, a lot of people, including the majority of the media, need to be asking themselves this same question.

In closing, I will say this: When you engage in 24/7 attacks, identifying your opponent as: ‘Hitler,’ a fascist, a threat to democracy, and other such inflammatory rhetoric, you are tacitly encouraging this sort of behavior. Anyone who has done this needs to have a ‘Come to Jesus' moment and take a long, hard look at yourself. If you are gleeful that there was an attempt, or saddened that the shooter missed, you need serious help. Corey Comperatore, an innocent husband and father, lost his life protecting his family, others were seriously wounded, and a former President of the United States was almost assassinated. Acceptance and encouragement of this type of action is the real threat to democracy, and it is time for everyone to wake up.

Interview with Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith (National Police Association)

I had the absolute pleasure of being interviewed by retired sergeant, Betsy Brantner Smith, for the podcast she does for the National Police Association.

Some of you might be familiar with Betsy, as she has appeared on a number of news shows, including Newsmax, and Fox.

Despite some minor technical glitches (rural internet being what it is), we managed to have a great time. Betsy is an awesome interviewer and we touched on a number of topics, including my career with the NYPD, my transition to author, and the state of policing.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Click on the photo below or the link provided at the botom.

Banned: 1984 Is Here

Breaking News: “Social media platform suspends Greek philosopher Aristotle for perpetuating the dangerous belief that the world is round, risking the lives of countless sailors.”

If you read that article today, you’d think it was from The Onion, yet the sad reality is that we are living through events future historians will judge harshly. As of yesterday, Twitter has suspended the President of the United States. Some may bemoan this while others cheer, but I see it as the start of a terrible precedent.

The reason I am writing this is that I am an author and I feel the need to take a stand against the insanity that seems to rage around us in the form of cancel culture and censorship. In a way, I feel that I am fortunate that I am on the back end of life, because those who are just starting out will have a bleak future if this madness continues.

I grew up reading in one form or another; comic books, magazines, and books littered my room. Okay, truth is they were all neatly arranged in chronological or alphabet order, but that is a topic for a different day. The point is, I read a lot. In fact, many of the books I read in school are now being banned. Classic reads such as To Kill a Mocking Bird, Of Mice and Men, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Catcher in the Rye, and Animal Farm. The latter I can appreciate, as it is a warning of the dystopian times we currently live in and we can’t risk people waking up to their own demise.

How long before The Great Gatsby, Catch-22, or 1984 make the list?

Oops, just checked and 1984 is banned. Life comes at you fast.

As an author, I am appalled at the growing calls for censorship, especially when it comes from those in my field.  At what point do we wake up and see the folly of our actions, or will we? When the mob gets done with the low hanging fruit, those things we seem to find easily objectionable, will they then pursue loftier goals? Will orders come from on high that quantify what we as authors can write? Will authors who write about a different gender, race, or creed be ostracized for having the audacity to write outside their lane?

Don’t think this will happen? Think again. I belong to several substantive industry groups, and this subject has already reared its ugly head on several occasions. Heated debate has risen on what some authors should and shouldn’t do. It seems farcical, but how long before it gains traction and becomes mainstream thinking?

My principal character in the James Maguire series is a man of Irish descent and a member of the NYPD. I should be safe with him, but what about Alex Taylor? Will I be banned from writing any future stories because she is a female and I don’t meet the gender threshold? How about Angelo Antonucci, since I’m not Italian? I guess I’m really screwed with my latest book, Awakening, which is a vampire saga.

The point is, censorship, in any form, is wrong.

Years ago, I read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. I did so as a historian who wanted to understand the inner workings of the man who brought so much pain and death into the world. You can also add Otto Skorzeny, Reinhard Heydrich, Heinrich Himmler, and others. I’ve also read books on several American luminaries such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. Complex men who may invoke equally complex feelings depending on what side of an issue you find yourself on, but isn’t that what a book should do? To make you think?

As an author, I feel it is my obligation to make you feel something when you read my books. I want to take you to a place that causes you to think. One of the greatest compliments I ever received was when a reader told me she had cried over a character. What’s that you say? You cry over characters all the time? That’s awesome, but did I forget to mention that this character was a terrorist?

Life is complicated and we do ourselves a terrible disservice when we try to sanitize it. Echo chambers are not healthy, nor do they stimulate thought and reason.

The actions being taken today, under the seemingly benign guise of tolerance and diversity, do not differ from what the aforementioned Hitler did. It’s ironic that those screaming ‘fascist’ the loudest are engaging in the same fascist actions they apparently abhor.

Mark Twain famously said, “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open your mouth and remove all doubt.” I would argue that it is better to open one’s mouth, and let others judge you for the content of your argument, than it is to keep your mouth shut just to appease the intellectually stunted.

Sadly, many in my field disagree with that sentiment, and that should worry you.

We often take the literary genre of Satire for granted.  Historically, it has satisfied a need to debunk or ridicule those in politics, religion, and other figures of power. Some of you may have even read the book ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes,’ by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, but did you know he wrote another book called ‘The Swineherd’? Both of the aforementioned books were satirical. The former pointed to the courtly pride and intellectual vanity of the king who’d been fooled by two weavers that gave him invisible clothes. Everyone went along with the charade, because he was the king, except for a young boy who could see he had no clothes. In the latter, a poor prince is rebuffed by a princess and takes a role as a commoner who provides the princess beautiful gifts in exchange for kisses. When her father the king finds out she is kissing a commoner, he throws her out. The prince then washes his face, puts on his royal attire, and spurns her. In both instances, the high and mighty receive their comeuppance, but there is more to the story.

After writing those satirical works, Anderson purportedly received a gift of a ruby and diamond ring from the Danish king.  After receiving the ring, he never wrote another satirical story. In fact, he went on to pen The Ugly Duckling, a transformative story that many consider to be analogous to Andersen himself. Some suggest the ring was a successful attempt to curb Andersen’s political satire and successfully bring him into the royal fold.

Is that what we are seeing today? I believe so.

Those in the creative arts, whether writers, actors, comedians, have always been at the vanguard of not only entertaining us, but making us uncomfortable at times.  Lately, this group seems to grow more angry and inclined to demand that you conform to their world views. If you do not, you subject yourself to cancel culture. This is a very scary place to be. If we can’t write what we are motivated to, what is the point?

Consider what happened to literary titan, J. K. Rowling, last summer. Ms. Rowling tweeted something which was deemed to be anti ‘LGBT’ and the cancel culture mob immediately descended on her. Interestingly enough, two of the people leading the charge were Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, the two actors who achieved incredible success playing characters from Ms. Rowling’s books. Let me say at the outset that I am not a fan of Ms. Rowling, and I have found myself in disagreement with her positions in the past, however I respect her work as an author. I feel no need to cheer for her opponents and no desire to cancel her for her opinions. It’s called being an adult. If I find something to be distasteful to me, or something that goes against my beliefs, I simply do not support it, but I certainly don’t go out to the village square and demand that everyone else conform to my positions or else. Yet that is what we are currently seeing in our society.

I am merely an entertainer; my opinions and positions are no greater, nor any less, than yours.

Yes, my books contain positions and topics that often coincide with my own, but they also contain elements that go against some of my beliefs.  I push myself as often as I hope I push you. I will never write what is safe. For me to do that, I would simply have three blank chapters in every book: The Beginning, Things Happened, The End; and you would be left to fill in what you preferred to read. Not exactly an edge-of-your-seat thriller.

Maybe it’s time that we all just go back to being examples of courtesy and respect, instead of being harbingers of our own demise.

banned_001.jpg